Allahabad High Court
Onkar Nath vs Union Of India Ministry Of Earth ... on 5 December, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81188 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31210 of 2019 Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Respondent :- Union Of India Ministry Of Earth Sciences N.Delhi And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Surya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar Singh , learned counsel appearing for Union of India.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Meteorologist-Isty Grade (5400 grade pay) on 30.6.2009. It is further stated that annual increment was payable to the petitioner on 1.7.2009 which has been denied by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner has already retired on 30.6.2009 and on the date he claims annual increment, he was not in service. The petitioner has raised the grievance before the respondents, who have rejected the same by means of order dated 6.9.2019. The reasons given in the impugned rejection order is that the petitioner was not in service on 1st July, 2009 i.e. on the date on which he has claimed the benefit of annual increment and consequently the same cannot be paid to him.
3. It has been submitted that annual increment had accrued to the government servants on 30th June of the year while the payment is made on 1st July, of the said year. He further submits that this aspect of the matter was considered by Supreme Court in the case of Director (Administration and HR) Appellant(s) KPTCL & Ors. Vs. C.P.Mundinamani & Others passed in Civil Appeal NO.2471 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.6185/2020). In the said case, following question was formulated by the Supreme Court:-
"6. The short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether an employee who has earned the annual increment is entitled to the same despite the fact that he has retired on the very next day of earning the increment?"
4. After considering the arguments and the judgments of various High Courts, Supreme Court concluded by observing as under:-
"In the present case the word ?accrue? should be understood liberally and would mean payable on the succeeding day. Any contrary view would lead to arbitrariness and unreasonableness and denying a government servant legitimate one annual increment though he is entitled to for rendering the services over a year with good behaviour and efficiently and therefore, such a narrow interpretation should be avoided. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court in the case of P. Ayyamperumal (supra); the Delhi High Court in the case of Gopal Singh (supra); the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nand Vijay Singh (supra); the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Yogendra Singh Bhadauria (supra); the Orissa High Court in the case of AFR Arun Kumar Biswal (supra); and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Takhatsinh Udesinh Songara (supra). We do not approve the contrary view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Accountant-General, Andhra Pradesh (supra) and the decisions of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Pavithran (O.P.(CAT) No. 111/2020 decided on 22.11.2022) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Hari Prakash Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (CWP No. 2503/2016 decided on 06.11.2020).
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the appellants to grant one annual increment which the original writ petitioners earned on the last day of their service for rendering their services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiently. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
5. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that in the case of a government servant retiring on 30th of June the next day on which increment falls due/becomes payable looses significance and must give way to the right of the government servant to receive increment due to satisfactory services of a year so that the scheme is not construed in a manner that if offends the spirit of reasonableness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner retiring on 30th June, 2009 would be entitled to the increment falling due on 1.7.2009 and, hence, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 6.9.2019/5.9.2019 is quashed.
7. The judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Director (Administration and HR) Appellant(s) KPTCL (Supra) was subjected to review on an application filed by Union of India where the order was reviewed vide order dated 6.9.2024 in the following manner:-
"We are informed that a large number of fresh writ petitions have been filed.
To prevent any further litigation and confusion, by of an interim order we direct that:
(a) The judgment dated 11.04.2023 will be given effect to in case of third parties from the date of the judgment, that is, the pension by taking into account one increment will be payable on and after 01.05.2023. Enhanced pension for the period prior to 31.04.2023 will not be paid.
(b) For persons who have filed writ petitions and succeeded, the directions given in the said judgment will operate as res judicata, and accordingly, an enhanced pension by taking one increment would have to be paid.
(c) The direction in (b) will not apply, where the judgment has not attained finality, and cases where an appeal has been preferred, or if filed, is entertained by the appellate court.
(d) In case any retired employee has filed any application for intervention/impleadment in Civil Appeal No. 3933/2023 or any other writ petition and a beneficial order has been passed, the enhanced pension by including one increment will be payable from the month in which the application for intervention/impleadment was filed."
8. The opposite parties are directed to provide notional increment for the purpose of pensionery benefits along with other consequential benefits with effect from 1.5.2023.
9. The opposite parties are further directed to re-compute the pension of the petitioner and pay him arrears.
10. Let this exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 5.12.2024 RKM.